Political tokenism and 'Manmohanomics' are failing to secure the rights of the poor and disenfranchised

Fali Nariman's The State of the Nation recounts Justices Bhandari and Verma's Lincoln like comments in open court: "We cannot have two Indias. You want the world to believe we are the strongest emerging economy, but millions of poor and hungry people are a stark contrast."

To this Nariman adds: "We face the problem of a Second Partition: Partitioning one people in two almost warring camps, the very affluent and the very poor...The neglect of the poor and needy in our country poses the single greatest threat to our survival as a nation in more than 60 years of independence."

We should not undermine these comments because Nariman is a lawyer identified with the corporate world. As a jurist statesman, he remains an acute observer of our governance.

Playing politics: It is difficult to know whether the equal-rights policies of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (right) and Congress President Sonia Gandhi (left) are a way of winning votes or a sincere effort at political integrity

Constitution

Whom is our constitution for? We play with the Constitution's preamble which says 'We the People' gave this constitution to ourselves.

Justice Lahoti's "We the People" disappoints. In any case, the Constitution was given to us by a group of wise but unrepresentative legislators elected on a property vote.

Because implementing socio-economic reform was going to be contested and expensive, our constitution makers relegated most of these objectives into the Directive Principles of State Policy which T T Krishnamachari rightly dubbed "a veritable dustbin of sentiment."

For 23 years, the Supreme Court denied credence to these principles until the Fundamental Rights case (1973) when even right wing judges like K S Hegde accepted that these objectives must be taken more seriously.

But the debate drifted on - relying on politics to close the rich-poor gap. The Supreme Court has tried to protect the environment and the poor - both sporadically.

At present, it is stuck with the right to food case, not quite sure that this is its remit. Nehru's view of bridging the gap was through planning and cooperatives borrowed from the, then, Soviet Union.

Despite his 'Ayodhya' experience in the late twenties and the Karachi Resolution (1931), he made little headway.

Perhaps, he thought that as long as the Scheduled Castes and Tribes have the benefit of affirmative action, that would be enough.

His was essentially a trickle down view though he thought his approach was more comprehensive.

Independence: India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (centre) addresses the midnight session of the constituted assembly of India in August 1947

Rights: The constitution was given to India by a group of wise but unrepresentative legislators elected on a property vote

Mrs. Gandhi's 'Garibi Hatao' was a great slogan but she was more concerned with her political survival as she imposed Emergency in the name of development.

Frankly the technocratic Rajiv Gandhi did not know the wood for the trees. He thought decentralising power to panchayats would be enough.

Mani Aiyar thinks that this is the greatest achievement since Independence. But, a delegated power with limited resources is not a substitute for food and education.

Upgraded government schools were also not enough. Rajiv Gandhi goofed up on the wrong side of corruption.

Narasimha Rao was back to a brazen trickle down. The well off took over and were the vehicle for change.

Krishna Iyer calls this Manmohanomics. But 'trickle down' does not win elections. This led to the Sonia plan of MNREGA to give seasonal employment, a right to education, a right to food to obtain votes.

She got votes for the Congress, but her son-stroke for Rahul spoilt her image as much as rampant corruption, an altar on which even an effective Lokpal Bill floundered. So what is all this about? Elections or moving towards an inclusive constitution for all?

There is no doubt that infrastructure, honesty and integrity are important for development. Even Chinese scholars realise that the 'rule of law' is part of the infrastructure. ]

People

Our constitution has become a document by and for the rich - with the poor having to wait for a few decades for survival, dignity and equal opportunity.

Modi's Gujarat is carefully crafted so that his governance is far from inclusive. He has played with caste and religion for votes. He has won.

Nitish Kumar is right to condemn him and ask for an inclusive approach. But, unfortunately, his George Fernandes's legacy of spite for the Congress and Laloo, puts him on the wrong side of the fence.

Who will win the next elections? Charisma, propaganda or results? The people of India are divided but also astute while being bewildered at the same time.

Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi's policies are carefully crafted so that his governance is far from inclusive. He has played with caste and religion for votes

But winning elections is not complete justice. Liberal theorists like Rawls speak of a 'difference' principle and aim for the disadvantaged subject to resources.

We are a divided nation exploiting horizontal differences between castes, tribes and religions.

Equality

To that extent the constitution is 'debased and defiled' in ways beyond Nani Palkhivala's pithy phrase.

I believe that affirmative action has resulted in tokenism even though my book Reserved was criticised both by law school administrators like Madhav Menon (who is certainly not a jurist) and the 'left' who failed to recognise that excessive tokenism is by itself not an answer.

Anna and the Aam Admi Party are unfortunately in it for themselves. No wonder naxalism affects large parts of India.

Equality: The constitution has become a document by and for the rich - with the poor having to wait for a few decades for survival, dignity and equal opportunity

Ambedkar foresaw that political equality and freedoms will not save the nation whose edifice will collapse if substantive equality is not achieved.

The right to food, water, work, dignity, gender justice, real equal opportunity has been eclipsed by a society driven by greed, power and disempowerment.

An inclusive constitution is not a vehicle for domination by the advantaged. We have to devise means to reverse the gaze. It is there that the solution lies.